Whether a judgment, not `final'in the sense of 28 USC § 1291, ought nevertheless be considered `final'in the sense of precluding further litigation of the same issue, turns upon such factors as the nature of the decision (ie, that it was not avowedly tentative), the adequacy of the hearing, and the opportunity for review

"Finality" in the context here relevant may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.

On occasion, however, temporary restraining orders have been issued without any notice when it was feasible for some fair, although informal, notice to be given.

—but includes many dispositions which, though not final in that sense, have nevertheless been fully litigated.

In analyzing whether it should depart from its previously stated rule, the Fifth Circuit stated: We are aware of respected authority to the effect that for the purpose of issue preclusion... the degree of finality required respecting the prior adjudication may in many instances be less than is appropriate for claim preclusion.... However, "[t] he most prominent [of these] decisions …

The Second Circuit has also held that an order granting a stay of arbitration is not an appealable injunction.

In the instant cases the court held that the previous determination, although rendered on review of a preliminary injunction, had sufficient finality to be conclusive in a later action for trademark infringement against a different competitor. '

This Circuit has adopted the Second Circuit's relaxed concept of finality, at least for purposes of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion.

Critically, collateral estoppel in not limited to opinions that "end [] the litigation and leave [] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'"

[CITATION] of Appellate Disposition